It seems that developed European countries are facing three quite distinct classes of arrivals: enemy jihadist soldiers; Syrian refugees; and economic migrants from Africa and the Middle East. The policies, and rhetoric, regarding each should be kept distinct. This seems elementary, but you can see people confusing them at every turn, possibly under the influence of shock. Keeping out enemy soldiers is a very high priority, since every one of them that lax policies (or even strict policies) let in could cause untold harm. The presence of the first group makes admitting the second group more difficult -- very slow and painstaking -- but not impossible. The third group makes keeping out the first group and letting in the second group even more difficult. It appears that European countries need very strict border controls now and need to turn back all but bona fide asylum seekers until further notice.
We now have the largest Somali population outside of Somalia, thanks to receiving refugees from civil war starting in the 1990s. We are even supplying Somali soldiers for ongoing conflicts in the region. Their presence in such numbers here is a source of low-level controversy, and serves as an example of the absence of democratic decision-making in what you would think is a fundamental aspect of social and political life, the demographic character of the community. Our democratically elected governor, however, has a solution for those who question his policies: "if they don't like it they can move to another state." I think that puts us in a good position to understand something of what is going on in Europe and England.
|